quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you misread this

quote:

No blog posts or others claims.

You find the email and you quote more than a 1 paragraph blurb and tell me how it disproves AGW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Spin, Baby, spin.  I'd not expect any less from a true believer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Spin, Baby, spin.  I'd not expect any less from a true believer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

This is going to be very interesting. I have to admit I don't understand enough about the finer points of climate science to know how to get the most out of that article, so I'm going to have to wait until it gets broken down and some of the details explained in depth. I'll be watching this one with a lot of interest. Thanks, Firm; good find.

I've long heard that East Anglica had problems with some of the early warming data, and had refused to release it.  The rumor was that the data had been compromised or corrupted several years ago, and that there was no longer any supporting evidence for what the early global temperature probes actually reported, therefore calling into doubt some of the claims about the rising temperature in this century.

I don't know if any of this data was hacked and released, but it will be interesting to see a full cataloging and analysis.

Firm

Actually, Firm, when I started looking at posts regarding the news bias thread, I was impressed with the restraint of your posts, both in that thread and in many others.

I often disagree with your position, but you've definitely earned my respect. You say what you have to say, and why--and then stop, without the stretching and half-truths and unsupportable statements others make. Your opinions may at times point in those directions, but you won't be caught saying them. The closest I've ever seen was immediately followed by the clear indication that you were only speculating, not claiming. And you don't start silly logic loops when people disagree. I wish more people posted like you. Discussing issues with people who disagree is then productive. At least we can understand why people see things as they do, rather than just parroting left/right talking points endlessly.

I saw this story about half an hour before you posted it (it was the third story on the Times home page, just after one about the stimulus impact, citing Democrat and Republican economics right at the start). I thought about posting it myself, but didn't want to get embroiled in another argument.

A position folks should keep open is that presenting this as either/or, on either side, is likely a distortion. We know climate change is periodic. We also know greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere. We know corporate scientists are going to serve the interests of the corporation. And what the Times and other articles have found is disturbing. All that doesn't mean that corporate scientists or independent scientists haven't done good studies. Or poor ones. It does mean we've got a mess.

One problem (I'll get to this in the news bias thread, if not this weekend, then next week) is people looking only at a study's conclusions. More important than the conclusions are how they were reached. Even a perfectly good study can be misapplied by people misunderstanding what it does and doesn't say. Plenty of studies are flawed, as the wealth of contradictory studies would indicate even without examining them. Refuting a study doesn't constitute proof of the opposite. The world is more complicated than this or that, period. And researchers are human, driven by ego, job requirements, competition, personal flaws, and more.

The rationale given later in the article by the scientists seems pretty flimsy. I'll be interested in what further investigation uncovers.

Thanks, Firm.

Tim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Spin, Baby, spin.  I'd not expect any less from a true believer.

You know Heretic, if the same criteria was used that DK now demands when this religion was founded it would still have only reached cult status. Then again, the Messiah Al Gore, wouldn't be rich and able to cruise around the globe in his private jet.

quote:

Merc, Gore has a private jet?
I assume you heard about him buying a 100 foot yacht last year, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you're outraged by someone trying to circumvent a FOI request? I just reviewed your posts on this forum and failed to find any previous complaints about this despite the fact that the previous administration basically ignored the FOIA. I'll keep your new found beliefs in government accountability in mind.

Since the email in question in no way dispoves the fact of AGW I assume I weill never hear about these emails or documents when you try to claim AGW is not happening in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you're outraged by someone trying to circumvent a FOI request? I just reviewed your posts on this forum and failed to find any previous complaints about this despite the fact that the previous administration basically ignored the FOIA. I'll keep your new found beliefs in government accountability in mind.

Since the email in question in no way dispoves the fact of AGW I assume I weill never hear about these emails or documents when you try to claim AGW is not happening in the future.

And with your vast statistical knowledge since ONLY outliers were used to create the hockeystick graphs I assume we'll never hear about them in support of AGW either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you're outraged by someone trying to circumvent a FOI request? I just reviewed your posts on this forum and failed to find any previous complaints about this despite the fact that the previous administration basically ignored the FOIA. I'll keep your new found beliefs in government accountability in mind.

Since the email in question in no way dispoves the fact of AGW I assume I weill never hear about these emails or documents when you try to claim AGW is not happening in the future.

And with your vast statistical knowledge since ONLY outliers were used to create the hockeystick graphs I assume we'll never hear about them in support of AGW either.

Do you ever have even the slightest clue what you're writing about?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Hacked E-Mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 20, 2009

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

***

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
James Delingpole

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

... (several examples from the hacked files: ed) ...

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

***

Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked: hundreds of files released


Much more .... climategate


Very interesting events going on.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain


For you to start a thread like this your bread must be buttered by an oil company in some way. I don't know if you own a gas station or if you have shares in Exxon, or something else, but you're not looking at this issue objectively.

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming. Those scientists were responding appropriately to misrepresentations and distortions of the truth. Global warming is a dangerous phenomena that wil lead to the destruction of the planet. I'm not interested in that happening because some selfish people are too lazy to find/do other work in developing new energy use, whether it's electric cars or solar or wind or something else.

You need to read Tom Friedman's new book Hot Flat and Crowded. You'd like to privatize gains and socialize losses. It applies just as much to global warming as it does to Wall Street. Read the book.

quote:

For you to start a thread like this your bread must be buttered by an oil company in some way. I don't know if you own a gas station or if you have shares in Exxon, or something else, but you're not looking at this issue objectively.

The evidence for global warming is overwhelming. Those scientists were responding appropriately to misrepresentations and distortions of the truth. Global warming is a dangerous phenomena that wil lead to the destruction of the planet. I'm not interested in that happening because some selfish people are too lazy to find/do other work in developing new energy use, whether it's electric cars or solar or wind or something else.

You need to read Tom Friedman's new book Hot Flat and Crowded. You'd like to privatize gains and socialize losses. It applies just as much to global warming as it does to Wall Street. Read the book.

quote:

is there a link somewhere that attests to "the Global Warming Messiah" taking a vow of poverty

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

is there a link somewhere that attests to "the Global Warming Messiah" taking a vow of poverty

He obviously has taken a vow of hypocrisy considering his contribution to global warming. Poverty isn't in question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


In short, flying in a private jet does more than four times the carbon emission damage to the environment than flying a regular commercial jet. So if you were worried about your quote-unquote "carbon footprint" on the environment, and if you are concerned about carbon neutrality, the last thing that you should be doing is flying on private jets. Sit in coach, you might save a polar bear.How does Al Gore fit into this equation?During the 2000 campaign when Al Gore was running to be president of the United States and along the way giving speeches about the environment, the former vice president traveled on private planes more than a few times. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the Gore campaign filed disbursement reports with the Federal Elections Commission, as required law, that document his use of private jets belonging to various businesses and corporations.The filings, which are publicly accessible, they reveal that during the period of January of 1999 and January of 2000, Gore reimbursed five groups and corporations for 16 flights on private jets.